[TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights



  • And once the bridge is live we could list zrc2 tokens like ZWAP and gZil



  • Thank you for sharing the data. Reducing the number of incentivized pairs is a good move so LP's can focus more assets on incentivized pairs and create a better arbitrage opportunity for traders.

    CEL Pairs
    Reducing Cel boost may result in a loss of 400k in liquidity. Consider leaving one pair with boost.

    Swth/ETH
    This pair has a high impermenent loss risk. Reducing Boost can also affect liquidity.

    nNeo/USDC/BUSD
    Focusing on one pair is a great move. Liquidity has shifted to Neo/BUSD, but it was nice to have Neo paired with USDC since that pair was not available any where else.

    Consider staying close to the Flamingo Pairs. Since the community are very closely related. A future Gas/USD pair could bring some volume and more choices to traders.



  • First thanks to all already responded. Did not expect that. I had to save the first draft because I ran out of time this day.

    While I was writing and interpreting data I already saw that I have to change my proposed adjustments. I will add more content.



  • @ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:

    Why is btcb1_busd1 still incentivized but cel_busd1 not (2.3% volume with weight 4 vs 2.2% volume with weight 3)?

    This was one think I realized while writing the this proposal. cel did perform not that bad. But we should definitly focus on 1 or max. 2 pairs. I checked how much triangular did in volume and it was ~ 10-15% total.

    @ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:

    Can we have a volume / liquidity ratio column for comparing how effective liquidity is in generating volume?

    Will add this, asap. Sadly I just have the current liqudity and not the liquidity at the time of trading.



  • @ravenxce @nwo @PlanD

    I have updated the proposal to a publish state. Please continue giving feedback. Please focus on the first two sub steps first:

    • Extension of the Liquidity Provider rewards
    • New Parterships Boost

    Since these two steps impact the rest, I want to start a Text proposals for these two prior to the ending of the current rewards.

    Thank you
    Devel



  • 2 nNEO pairs with boost should suffice. nNEO/ETH and any 1 of nNEO/BUSD or nNEO/USDC.

    1 CEL pair should be enough for boost. I think CEL/BUSD wins because of low network fee on BSC side compared to CEL/ETH and CEL/USDC where both sides are ETH.

    I think WBTC/USDC and ETH/WBTC could see an increase in boost a little. Rest all looks fine.

    For new partnerships boost, all your points are good but I think minimum liquidity should be $500k and $250k per pair. But I am fine with whatever the consensus is.



  • @nwo said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:

    For new partnerships boost, all your points are good but I think minimum liquidity should be $500k and $250k per pair. But I am fine with whatever the consensus is.

    The more liqudity the better, but I dont think that any medium/major projects will even look at demex(right now). Providing 500k Liquidity is a high threshold for low marketcap projects. Maybe trough the boost they achieve that but not prior too.

    Maybe @Coco87 and @seraph_staking can speak for Locklet, could be our first partnership approach to test it.



  • Please note, I provide liquidity to the CEL/USDC/BUSD pairs, depending on how bonuses are decided, this will definitely decide on how I will proceed here. I also provide LP for CEL/ETH on uniswap. If there are CEL/ETH bonuses added I will strongly thing about moving that LP here.



  • @Devel484 @ravenxce @nwo

    We are open to bring more liquidity on LKT/USDC for LP boost with Orilaz, but it will be difficult to go over 100k$, we are young project, our total marketcap is around 2M$. And we got Uniswap, Pancakeswap and Mdex pools to manage as well.



  • @Devel484

    Thanks for the proposal. Here are some current questions:

    1. My main concern would be with the swth_usdc pool - this pool is actually currently 80% USDC. At current SWTH prices, awarding 16 points to it is basically a super high USD yield farm. The volume/liquidity ratio is also quite low as compared to swth_busd. Seems to suggest liquidity is wasted. I suggest we could either: a) create a new 50-50 pool and reward that, or b) drop the weightage for that pool such that the resultant APR will be closer to stablecoin pools.

    2. There are multiple NEO pools being rewarded. When the protocol supports Neo3, what is the plan here? I think we should decide now if we are going to a) move rewards, b) split rewards, or c) treat Neo3 pools as new additional pools with rewards to be reconsidered.

    3. I think we can give more weight to the partnership idea, it is worth a shot to get more users on the protocol. Not a big concern though, as we can also just increase it later by not restricting to 5 points (so total > 100) if it works well.

    By the way, if we could have a column with the current APRs, that would be great, so we can eyeball what the new figure would look like.



  • @ravenxce USDC/SWTH 50-50 pool is a very good idea in my opinion, i'd definately join that pool.



  • @ravenxce @nwo @PlanD @CoolCash @Coco87 @acidbird

    Thanks to @intsol we were able to reproduce the exact amount of liquidity at any time in the past. I changed the Volume/Liquidity ratio to Total AMM Volume / Total AMM Liquidty indicating how much volume the AMM produced at the total liquidity available over the time.

    I also added new tables and diagrams. The linked spreadsheet contains way more information. Due to the fact that the post is already extremly long I just reference the sheet.

    @ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:

    My main concern would be with the swth_usdc pool - this pool is actually currently 80% USDC. At current SWTH prices, awarding 16 points to it is basically a super high USD yield farm. The volume/liquidity ratio is also quite low as compared to swth_busd. Seems to suggest liquidity is wasted. I suggest we could either: a) create a new 50-50 pool and reward that, or b) drop the weightage for that pool such that the resultant APR will be closer to stablecoin pools.

    Yes definitly. We should create a new pool and link it to the market asap. Question: Is the protocol able to handle two pools linked to the same market, this would allow us to make a clean transfer.

    @ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:

    There are multiple NEO pools being rewarded. When the protocol supports Neo3, what is the plan here? I think we should decide now if we are going to a) move rewards, b) split rewards, or c) treat Neo3 pools as new additional pools with rewards to be reconsidered.

    As soon as Tradehub supports N3 and most other exchanges start using N3 we should change all Neo pools to N3 pools and drop the old one. As far as I know the NEO team tries to motivate all users to shift to N3.

    @ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:

    I think we can give more weight to the partnership idea, it is worth a shot to get more users on the protocol. Not a big concern though, as we can also just increase it later by not restricting to 5 points (so total > 100) if it works well.

    I added the a ARB table for pool weights + provided liquidity. Locklet (@Coco87 + @seraph_staking ) already showed their intrest in providing atleast 100k. Lets see and try out I would say.

    And sorry for the many changes and tagging. But collection and processing that much of data (few gigabytes of data) took a lot of time + effort. I had to develop few helping tools 😛



  • Hi Devil and others! Great job, and very good that you started this threat. Already a lot is said about the weight, and the efficiency. I focussed my feedback on other aspects. In my opinion, the success of this proposal is not only in adjusting weights, and creating other pools. It’s depends on the ability to close new (strategic) partnerships. And also in the follow up. What triggers me is that we are talking about ‘partnerships’. Besides Locklet we don’t have any, yet. In my opinion this proposal is very much needed, to be able to successful work towards these partnerships.

    Quite some text, excuse me in advance, English is not my native language. I’ll follow your 3 sub-proposals first.

    1. Extension of the Liquidity Provider rewards: It’s a yes for me. Personally I think the percentages could be a bit higher, regarding the upcoming 100-listings and the need to provide a decent bootstrap. On the other hand, more than 30% would lead to new discussions. Let’s keep the max on 30%.
    2. New Partnerships Boost: It’s a yes for me. The main goal of liquidity pools is to create volume. Volume leads to fees, fees lead to rewards (value) for swth-stakers. It also leads to fair changes that your sell/buy order gets filled (small slippage), so it makes Demex function as it should. So, all good. The proposal fits the purpose. See below more feedback, also on the bullet “Telegram + Twitter promotion".
    3. Pool weight adjustment: It’s a yes for me as it is presented at this moment. We need to keep the discussion live and open during the next months.

    Besides this feedback…👇

    Getting to more volume
    Only full juicy ordersbooks is not enough to generate volume. We need (automated) Market Makers: meaning (new) active traders and/or arbitrage bots. Attracting new traders is something I guess we don’t need to discuss in this thread (chicken-egg). What I’d like to address is better organizing (automated)MM, more specific arbitrage bots, to serve Demex. There are currently not much people running arbitrage bots. And I guess the bot with the lowest profit-% will take all the opportunities. I assume the profit-% is small, but with future expected high(er) volume over a longer period of time, it will be significant. I would like to see the a-bot profits to further strengthen the value proposition of Demex. Mabey this is very easy, if an a-bot would run with, for example, a 95% chance on an average of 0% profit, and would therefor only run to create volume. Or mabey it takes more, like adding a-bots whose profits flow into liquidity pools, or are used to buy and burn SWTH/other LP-token.Take into account a min. amount to perform an action due to the requirement of fees.

    Getting to (strategic) partnerships
    Besides the suggested basics numbers for liquidity we need to think about: 1) how do we even get to new partnership and 2) after closing a partnership, how do we keep momentum high and the buzz going. You could call it marketing/promotion for Demex, for Switcheo, and for the Partner. I cant help myself to spit out some thoughts, because I think we need to put thoughts on this matter at this point aswell. This proposal serves future partnerships.

    How do we get to new partnerships:
    I think we need to have a good proposition to get partners involved and we really have to sharpen this item. I guess we all do. So, why would partners get involved with us, in stead of competitors? I think the main benefits for them should be financial and exposure (to satisfy their token holders), ideal also collaboration in knowledge development, knowledge exchange, product development and integrating partners services. Okay, so how? How do we get to partnerships? Not limiting myself with technical aspects, some suggestions:

    Assumption: the client to close a partnership with is a professional organisation/businesspartner.

    1. We could work with a referral code for new partners, so they are more likely to get their community members to open Demex-accounts, deposit and do trades (partner gets % of the fee during the first x-period or time).
    2. I hope we can increase the min. required liquidity, but on the other hand, Demex doesn’t have the position (yet) to set a very high min. rate. For smaller businesses the min. liquidity is likely to be to difficult (see the feedback of Coco/Locklet). In order to get new partners on board, we could offer partnership-packages. Basic, Regular, Extra. Variation in especially min. Liquidity and mabey also duration/time and joint-exposure. Especially for smaller businesses, we counter-offer exposure and availability (see below).
    3. We should at all times prevent the image “we have to pay for a partnership”, so clearly point out the mutual benefits.
    4. Is there room to think about a business/commercial account manager, or sales person, assigned by Switcheo? Working on a reward base? Or is this something community-members should do (regarding decentralisation)? Rewards could be paid from the SDF.
    5. We can assume our competition will react, mabey copy and improve our approach. Def. need more thoughts about long-term relations and binding our partners...

    Make other communities aks for a Demex partnership/collaboration
    It would be great to get communities of other businesses/projects to start organizing a partnership (Demex-listing and liquidity-pooling) themselves. It fits the decentralized vision. Or at least to get them asking, or even begging 😊, the teams/projects they support to start getting them listed on Demex. Their community members are suddenly turned into our salespersons, and do our aquisition. It would be great to find some sort of financial benefit to incentify community members to do so. Some ideas:

    1. Again: referrals.
    2. Use a % of the tradingfees to buy the partners token (increase demand). What to do with these tokens after required needs more thought (put into LP, lock, burn,…). Take into account a min. amount to perform an action due to the requirement of fees.
    3. The current pro's of Demex (low fees, dex, complex orders, no kyc, orderbooks, no deposit/withdraw limits, etc).
    4. Current business associates can provide valuable input...

    Telegram + Twitter promotion":
    Yes, we/team can and should offer to work (together) on joint exposure. Basic: reviews about our partner and the type of collaboration, and the channels we use (twitter/medium/reddit/etc.).We provide the new partner and the partnership with regular joint-exposure, and how it benefits both parties (and therefor also swth-holders). We could also offer 'Ask Me Anything' sessions, and so on. These reviews can be written by Switcheo Labs, a 3th party, or by a community member. We can even ask community members to make NFT's (like the swth-comic). Thought: we can pay people 50% with the partners-tokens and 50% in SWTH (from the Switheo Development Fund). And yes, our partner needs to do promotion with the same intensity and goal.

    Last item...
    Out of the box: for each trade made, a % of the fee goes to a Liquidity Pool Bootstrap Fund. This bootstrap fund invests in Liquidity Pools. This fund grows over time. How and what to do with it needs more thinking. Seems a small amount at this time, can be significant when volume really picks up. This needs math.Take into account a min. amount to perform an action due to the requirement of fees.

    Thanks everyone for taking the time to read all of the above. I know, not everyting is related to the original threat by Devil. But his threat led to the thoughts above, so somehow it's all related. At least I'd like to think... 🙏



  • Since now SWTH/USDC is 50-50 same as SWTH/BUSD 50-50:

    Should remove rewards from SWTH/BUSD and add that to SWTH/USDC - Total 24 Boost (Those coming from BUSD to buy SWTH have the USDC/BUSD pair).

    OR

    Make SWTH/USDC and SWTH/BUSD equal boost of 12 each.

    Having different weight for 50 SWTH - USDC 50 and 50 SWTH - BUSDC 50 makes no sense since both are 50-50 and essentially stable coin.


Log in to reply